Thursday, November 8, 2012

Liberal intellectuals and the Obama election

The following is a passage from The Ultimate Frontier by Eklal Kueshana, first published in 1963. 


    "Most people who arrogate to themselves the status of 'intellectual' are seeking a distinction among men to compensate for their social ineptitude. A deep sense of inferiority compels them to proclaim their superiority over intelligent men of good sense.  Intellectuals like to believe that they are so far above the rest of society that common men can't understand them or appreciate them. To prove this contention, they have an esoteric jargon of their own. When intellectuals gather, they spend the time impressing each other with their culture and education. Such intellectuals form a sort of lunatic group of writers, artists, poets and bizarre nonconformists, who parrot clever things they've learned from published intellectuals. Because they really try to believe they are above men, they will go to any extreme to demonstrate their contempt for society's hard-gained concepts of proper behavior and morality.
    "Intellectuals behave in a bohemian manner not so much for the sake of enjoyment but because it is the very opposite of prudent convention. They flout religion because they feel their intellect is beyond such opiates. They contrarily profess radical, revolutionary movements and would secretly love to gain control over their country in order to mold it to their own liking. Inasmuch as they cannot fit into society, their antagonism toward it makes them want to command all who comprise it. They would force everyone to acclaim their kind as exalted beings. Intellectuals are notorious for having promoted revolutionary ideologies which have resulted in the overthrow of established governments, and in effect, they have carelessly and unconscionably delivered whole nations into the hands of dictators. this they may do in hopes of reward from a new government, but almost without exception they are removed as dangerous inciters of revolution by the very scoundrels they afforded power. 
    "Most intellectuals are prone to harmless self-pity, retreat and erratic behavior; but the liberal is a real villain. He will take no firm stand on anything even if his very survival depends on a soundly reasoned plan of action. He will tell you that one must be open to both sides of every question at all times. He will bend over to demonstrate, for instance, that Nazism and Buddhism are similar or that the concepts of good and evil are wholly relative so that no absolute moral laws can exist or insist that the notion of the sun revolves about the Earth can never be entirely disproven. Under the guise of open-mindedness and intellectual fairness, we have a person who will not think constructively or conclusively. Ironically, he usually is college educated, smoothly persuasive and well-polished socially, and these attributes aid in his appointment to positions of trust and respectability. But his devious, unanchored morality and his adeptness at evasive double-talk make the liberal an easy turncoat and traitor -- after all, his loyalty is only relative to his nonabsolute code of morality. He can rationalize any immoral behavior by his shifting standards which allow him, above all other men, the ability to live any way he pleases and never sin in his own eyes. This he can do without inner conflict because the liberal can argue that his intellect may in some respects exceed God's wisdom -- if indeed he even recognizes a God. The liberal, as you can see, is without common sense, logic or morality. He is creation's most dangerous fool." 

There is a direct link between the above passage and the reelection of Obama to occupy the White House. In both 2008 and 2012 Obama was the overwhelming favorite of "intellectuals" that hold positions of influence in this nation's universities, a group eerily consistent with the above definition. In addition, also consistent with the positions of influence held by the "intelligentsia" in mass media within nominally "Liberal" or "Conservative" venues, a great number of people have accepted the pronouncements of these groups "on both sides of the aisle" as if their arguments have merit. Thus, the recent "election" has been been given credibility in the minds of most voters. 

Style has overruled substance. Superficiality has risen to preclude examination of content and meaning within the political spectrum of this country.

This is a dangerous position for this nation to be in, while the great majority of Americans face uncertain futures. The consensus accepted blindly is to "elect" officials and trust the future well-being of more than three hundred million persons to them, hoping that they will act benevolently and wisely in the interest of us all. History has proven time and again that this expectation is never fulfilled, and that those who are granted such power inevitably abuse it in their own self-interest.